M/S Mangal Commercial PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the power of review. The Court found that the Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, was crucial and its omission by the parties led to wasted court time. The Court reiterated that the original judgment had upheld the respondents' contentions regarding the necessity of appointing Proper Officers throughout India for specific purposes, including detecting foul play, and that Section 6 of the CGST Act was more related to assessment, not the purpose of appointing Proper Officers for investigation. The Court also upheld the respondents' contention that if simultaneous proceedings were initiated, the assessee could bring it to the notice of the relevant officer to avoid parallel actions. The Court emphasized that review powers are not a substitute for appeal and can only be invoked for errors apparent on the face of the record. The attempt by the review petitioners to seek a re-hearing was deprecated. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.

Facts

These review petitions arise from judgments delivered on November 20, 2019, by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in several writ petitions. The original writ petitions challenged the appointment of multiple Proper Officers under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime and the validity of a circular (Annexure P/1) dated July 5, 2017. During the proceedings, a Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, was brought to the Court's attention, which significantly impacted the case. Both parties expressed regret for not bringing this notification to the Court's notice earlier. The Court then heard arguments again on October 22, 2019, and November 6, 2019, focusing on the merits after the clarification. The review petitioners sought to re-argue points related to the circular and the appointment of multiple officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the Court's judgment dated November 20, 2019, warranting a review, particularly concerning the challenge to Annexure P/1 Circular and the appointment of multiple Proper Officers. Petitioner's Arguments: The review petitioners contended that the Court had omitted to consider their challenge against Annexure P/1 Circular dated July 5, 2017, and the issue of appointing multiple/plurality of officers. They argued that the judgment failed to address these points adequately. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, rendered the challenge to the appointment of Proper Officers moot. They further contended that Section 167 of the CGST Act was not attracted, negating the need for a Gazette notification for the circular. They also argued that the appointment of Proper Officers across different territories was necessitated to detect malpractices, and any simultaneous proceedings could be resolved by bringing them to the notice of the concerned officers. The respondents maintained that the Court had considered all relevant pleadings and provisions of law.